Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:15:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> Cc: bugghy <bugghy@home.ro> Subject: Re: magic sysrq keys functionality Message-ID: <20040726121005.D32601@pooker.samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20040726175219.GA96815@green.homeunix.org> References: <1090718450.2020.4.camel@illusion.com> <200407251112.46183.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20040726152151.GC1473@green.homeunix.org> <20040726175219.GA96815@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:49:55AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > B> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:23:36PM +0000, bugghy wrote: > > > > Yeah but it sometimes "freezes" (no reboot) ... and I'd rather umount my > > > > filesystems before rebooting. > > > > > > SoftUpdates guarantess that your file systems will not get corrupt. > > > > > > > This isn't entirely correct. Softupdates guarantees that you won't get > > corruption due to metadata pointing to invalid or stale data blocks. > > That's not the same as guaranteeing that there won't be any corruption. > > Write caching on the drive combined with an in-opportune power loss or > > other failure can easily leave you with corrupt or incomplete metadata > > and/or data blocks. A panic while metadata is being committed to disk can > > also leave the metadata highly inconsistent and prone to corruption. > > This isn't to say the SU is bad or that other strategies are necessarily > > better, just that there are definite risks. > > If you just want to generalize it, you can say that "SoftUpdates > guarantees that your file systems will not get corrupt due to just > software errors." I don't particularly think not having UPS is a > good idea, but those can fail, and even so the ordering is such > that a truncated inode won't result in a truly corrupt filesystem, > and the inode doesn't get written until its contents are written > out. > > Also, hw.ata.wc really shouldn't default to 1. > GAH! No, please don't start this war again! The last time that we tried turning this off in a release (4.1 IIRC), were were plagqued by months of earthquakes, plagues, and deaths of first-born youngsters. I 100% agree that write caching in ATA is not compatible with data integrety, but the ATA marketting machine has convinced us that cached+untagged speed is better than uncached+tagged safety. C'est la vie, or so they say here. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040726121005.D32601>